A Thought Experiment Regarding Punishment vs Rehabilitation

[Infected Mushroom]

Rehabilitation isn’t about repaying a debt. It’s about “how can we fix your state of mind and make you a safe, functional member of society.”

You rehabilitate the robber when his state of mind is “fixed” (sometimes this is demonstrated by actions), not when he does enough community service to match the exact dollar amount of the damage he did.

...

To rehabilitate a murderer, you just need to fix their mind. There’s no cost accounting on whether they did enough amends to equate to the life they took before letting them go.

Everything you just said was wrong and seriously outdated.

Basically what I’m saying is, if you declare someone rehabilitated, release them, and they never re-offend again, then I consider that rehabilitation successful.

Whether or not they ever contribute enough value while in the program or out and beyond to account for their net societal damage isn’t something I factor in.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don’t believe all convicted 1st degree murderers (or even a majority) would be certified as psychopaths; they’d likely fall on a spread in terms of the spectrum.

1. I'm not taking a chance that this one is not.
2. Whether they are or not, three years is far too little time for first degree premeditated murder, anyway. Had it been a mandatory 25 years spent focused on rehabilitation (and then they could be considered for parole), I'd have considered option 2. But three years... fuck no.

You don’t have to take any chances. It tells you they will feel remorse and will be made functional and non-offending.

I mean if it was a normal, random case... then I totally get the “well I don’t think we could ever be 100 percent sure this person won’t re-offend so let’s just stick to the existing penal system” but this is different

[Heloin]

Because what could someone every do to repay taking a human life like that? There is not line between punishment and rehabilitation, everything must have both. Some things still must be punished and murder in the first degree is a crime that no punishment can ever be enough for.

I really don't believe into punishment for punishment's sake. A wrong doesn't undo another wrong. Locking or killing or torturing or ... someone doesn't do the wrong they did. Punishment is only justifiable to 1. protect society from the person re-iterating a crime, 2. help the person be rehabilitated and 3. as a deterrent so others don't commit the crime. But in the case of the hypothetical 1. and 2. are clearly better served by rehabilitation, and the deterrent part is more global, it's not the handling of one specific case which will change it.

This has about as much to do with anything I've been stating as IM's nonsense. Deterrents don't work, I've already stated that. Rehabilitation is deeply important, I've already stated that. The point you're missing is what punishment is. You've read my point as corporal in nature or even disgustingly in support of the death penalty. A length of time behind bars is and will always be a punishment. Rehabilitation to a degree is a punishment.

Someone who kills like that should never be allowed on the streets again, rehabilitation doesn't exist since this is someone who can never and should never be a member of society again.

Uh ? Why ? Actually you know most "civlised" countries don't have either death penalty nor life without parole, and everyone is allowed on the streets again after 20 or 30 years, and I've absolutely no problem with that. Why wouldn't the person ever be able to be part of society again ? And why shouldn't they be, if they changed ?

Yeah, firstly don't say "civilised" to the person from the third world. Even in quotes it reads in very poor form.

By that argument all unconvicted leaders of the Rwandan genocide should go free. It happened over twenty five years ago and they've changed since then. I'm sure Félicien Kabuga will be happy to know some people are pushing for his freedom before his trail in the near future.

Then you've destroyed them. They aren't the same person who went in, you just destroyed a person who while the world may be better without but still destroyed them, and then filled a husk with a new person. If it's magic it's pretty amoral, if it's psychological it's completely horrific.

Well, I've to admit that's the most problematic part, and the OP lacks any specifics on how it's done (and why they committed murder initially). But I don't think you necessarily need to completely destroy the person and make a new one for that to happen. It'll be a slightly different person sure, but most of the personality can be kept, and depending exactly what is done and how it'll be more or less ethical.

Someone has murdered someone very close to you. They did so in cold blood, with pre-planning, and with malice.

[Kilobugya]

Some minds cannot be fixed. Some people can never be rehabilitated. I keep mentioning psychopaths. They are incurable: they feel no empathy, cannot learn remorse, fear no social stigmatisation or punishment.

I wouldn't be so categorical, "never say never", but the hypothetical was clear that this particular criminal can be, so I don't see that as relevant anyway.

[Heloin]

Everything you just said was wrong and seriously outdated.

Basically what I’m saying is, if you declare someone rehabilitated, release them, and they never re-offend again, then I consider that rehabilitation successful.

Whether or not they ever contribute enough value while in the program or out and beyond to account for their net societal damage isn’t something I factor in.

You treating this like their wouldn't be a victim. One who is dead. There are many reasons why everything you've said is wrong but that you forget that in order for there to be a murderer their has to be a person, someone who had a life, a family, friends, and dreams, and who was murdered.

[The Free Joy State]

1. I'm not taking a chance that this one is not.
2. Whether they are or not, three years is far too little time for first degree premeditated murder, anyway. Had it been a mandatory 25 years spent focused on rehabilitation (and then they could be considered for parole), I'd have considered option 2. But three years... fuck no.

You don’t have to take any chances. It tells you they will feel remorse and will be made functional and non-offending.

I mean if it was a normal, random case... then I totally get the “well I don’t think we could ever be 100 percent sure this person won’t re-offend so let’s just stick to the existing penal system” but this is different

I added a third point.

Some crimes need a minimum sentence. Wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly taking someone's life is one of those crimes (rape would be another).

Three years for murdering another person with malice aforethought, I repeat... fuck no.

Some minds cannot be fixed. Some people can never be rehabilitated. I keep mentioning psychopaths. They are incurable: they feel no empathy, cannot learn remorse, fear no social stigmatisation or punishment.

I wouldn't be so categorical, "never say never", but the hypothetical was clear that this particular criminal can be, so I don't see that as relevant anyway.

I prefer to go with the experts on this.

[Nevertopia]

Option 2 would ultimately be for the best but I dont have to like it!

[Kilobugya]

Deterrents don't work, I've already stated that.

Deterrents do work to a point - not always, and harsh penalties don't make better deterrents than moderate ones, the most important for a working deterrent is to have a high (or at least a perceived high) enforcement rate.

The point you're missing is what punishment is. You've read my point as corporal in nature or even disgustingly in support of the death penalty. A length of time behind bars is and will always be a punishment. Rehabilitation to a degree is a punishment.

I did list "locking them", I'm not saying you support corporal punishment or death penalty, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that punishments in general should never be an end in itself, that punishment is always a negative (since it inflicts harm on someone), but can only be justifiable if it's the only mean for an end (such as protecting society or rehabilitation or deterrent), which it's not in this case. I just don't see what purpose does a punishment in that case serve.

Yeah, firstly don't say "civilised" to the person from the third world. Even in quotes it reads in very poor form.

You're right, I shouldn't have. I apologize.

By that argument all unconvicted leaders of the Rwandan genocide should go free. It happened over twenty five years ago and they've changed since then. I'm sure Félicien Kabuga will be happy to know some people are pushing for his freedom before his trail in the near future.

No, because of deterrent. It's important to make it clear that people committing genocide or other crimes against humanity will always be prosecuted even if 25 years after, so other leaders will think twice before doing it. Letting them go free will give the signal to would-be genocidal leaders "it's ok, I can do it".

And also because they could, if let free, participate into trying to deny the existence of the genocide, or apologize for it, or help organize groups that want to finish the work, ...

[Heloin]

I wouldn't be so categorical, "never say never", but the hypothetical was clear that this particular criminal can be, so I don't see that as relevant anyway.

I prefer to go with the experts on this.

Gosh Master Free Joy! You're not saying that Mr. IM isn't an expert are you! Sixes and sevens I says.

[Wizlandia]

Please consider the following very straightforward hypothetical:

Someone has murdered someone very close to you. They did so in cold blood, with pre-planning, and with malice.

They are arrested and put on trial.

A supernatural being comes to you and tells you that you must choose between two outcomes (whatever you choose, the court will be influenced to find in that direction by supernatural mechanisms and no appeal will be successful):

Option 1: The murderer gets punished with the harshest sentence in the land (you can decide whether that’s life or death sentence)

Option 2: The murderer gets sent down a path of rehabilitation and restorative justice. After 3 years, they are free to walk again. Please assume that you have pre-existing knowledge that if you pick Option 2, the murderer’s rehabilitated state will be genuine in that for the rest of their lives, they will literally never break the law again. Under this option, they feel genuine remorse while being able to contribute productively to both the economy and society. After a while, they are able to lead a normal life.

Which option will you choose? Please assume that both options are somehow legally defensible outcomes in the hypothetical “land” and that your foreknowledge of the future for Option 2 is genuine.

Please justify.

I'm going to assume keeping all other things equal (in particular no decrease in deterrent to murder). Option 2 is (imo) the better option and the one I would choose right now thinking abstractly, but being perfectly honest, if a person murdered someone close to me I'd most likely be angry enough to choose option 1.

[Heloin]

Deterrents don't work, I've already stated that.

Deterrents do work to a point - not always, and harsh penalties don't make better deterrents than moderate ones, the most important for a working deterrent is to have a high (or at least a perceived high) enforcement rate.

That's the fault of my oversimplification. Yes I agree with this point.

The point you're missing is what punishment is. You've read my point as corporal in nature or even disgustingly in support of the death penalty. A length of time behind bars is and will always be a punishment. Rehabilitation to a degree is a punishment.

I did list "locking them", I'm not saying you support corporal punishment or death penalty, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that punishments in general should never be an end in itself, that punishment is always a negative (since it inflicts harm on someone), but can only be justifiable if it's the only mean for an end (such as protecting society or rehabilitation or deterrent), which it's not in this case. I just don't see what purpose does a punishment in that case serve.

Of course punishment shouldn't be the end goal but the issue is punishment still should be considered. While rehabilitation is great the fact that someone did something wrong must still be considered. And in the case of murder, my meaning as in the US terms for first or second degree, there really is no way to ever make up for it.

Yeah, firstly don't say "civilised" to the person from the third world. Even in quotes it reads in very poor form.

You're right, I shouldn't have. I apologize.

It's all cool.

By that argument all unconvicted leaders of the Rwandan genocide should go free. It happened over twenty five years ago and they've changed since then. I'm sure Félicien Kabuga will be happy to know some people are pushing for his freedom before his trail in the near future.

No, because of deterrent. It's important to make it clear that people committing genocide or other crimes against humanity will always be prosecuted even if 25 years after, so other leaders will think twice before doing it. Letting them go free will give the signal to would-be genocidal leaders "it's ok, I can do it".

And also because they could, if let free, participate into trying to deny the existence of the genocide, or apologize for it, or help organize groups that want to finish the work, ...

I'd fully argue that you're avoiding the same point for murder. Releasing someone after 3 years, even if you magically fully rehabilitated them, would give the signal that murder is fine. The punishment is that of what is now for crimes like minor theft and the like (which is too high for that sort of thing but is a discussion for somewhere else) and treating murder in the first degree like it's multiple accounts of aggravated driving is insensitive.

[Page]

I'd rather Option 2 happen but without me having to make the choice. I recognize that Option 2 is rational and utilitarian but if I hate someone as I would someone who murdered a person I love, I don't want to be involved in helping them.

[Dakini]

I'd go for rehabilitation, though I think it would take more than three years to rehabilitate a murderer and I'm not actually sure that they're all able to be rehabilitated. So more of an indefinite sentence to a rehabilitation facility type thing, which could mean until the end of the person's life.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

The world is unfortunately not a good place. The movie The Voices (2014) shows how sick people can be. There really should be rehabilitation for sick people, but unfortunately I have the primitive remains of Homo sapiens. I would like to take revenge, but that doesn't mean the action is right. Just like doctors smoking and being anti-smoking.

[Thepeopl]

I would fully recommend rehabilitation. The murderer needs to do all good things/ acts of kindness that my loved one would have done.
I would like to talk to the murderer and make them see my loved one from my point of view and would like to know how/ why they reached the conclusion why it would be a great idea to kill my loved one.
I truly hope the Murderer will educate children about how awful situations happen and how not to follow in their footsteps. How to don't do what you can't undo, until you've considered what you can't do once you've done it.

[Chan Island]

I feel very conflicted on this. On the one hand, rehabilitation is preferable, yet on the other hand 3 years just isn't long enough for such a process to, I suppose, feel genuine for a premeditating murderer. Even with all the assurances that it would be legit and that this person will be a model citizen afterwards with such a short amount of time it'd only be possible with lying or magic.

Of course, having them be released after such a short time gives a bad signal when it comes to deterrence. The idea that someone caught committing murder is going to be locked away in a cell for decades is a powerful force for stopping others from doing the same, and a piddly 3 years is nothing. No matter how reformed they come out, it would be very uncomfortable to then have this person walking around as a living proof of how the judicial system can show extraordinary leniency for heinous crimes.

In conclusion, this wouldn't be an appropriate decision for me to make. I choose violence. Ghosty boi is getting my knuckle sandwich for making me the judge and jury of someone who'd emotionally hurt me in such a way.

[The Free Joy State]

[*snip*]
In conclusion, this wouldn't be an appropriate decision for me to make. I choose violence. Ghosty boi is getting my knuckle sandwich for making me the judge and jury of someone who'd emotionally hurt me in such a way.

I have the feeling "Kick the Crap out of the Ghostie" would be ahead by a country mile if it had been put on the poll.

[Ifreann]

Absolutely reeling from white collar criminals being equated to child rapists.

Ya. When they murder thousands of people but only get a slap on the wrist because they made a billion dollars doing it I guess it makes me reel.

Or when they use Mickey Mouse in their promotional materials without Disney's permission.

[Uiiop]

Option 2 but it is funny that people assume the ghost is lying rather than accept the hypothetical has an heavily optimistic view of re-Hab and playing by its rules.

[Neanderthaland]

I know who I'm going to call.

[Vikanias]

I’d choose 2, considering since I know the murderer will feel remorseful and will never commit a crime again if I choose it is good because no future murder cases = good. But 3 years is too short. Lowest should be 10

BUT if the deity didn’t give the knowledge to me that he’d never commit crimes and feels remorse I’d go with one. But with life sentence. I wouldn’t take the chance that the rehabilitation failed and he kills more innocent people.

[The Restored Danelaw]

Honestly I feel like the real question should be who let the ghost in charge? In what world is leaving a person emotionally invested in a case in a way this serious play judge, jury and executioner even remotely close to a good idea? That guy killed people close to me in cold blood and premeditatedly. I shouldn't even participate in the trial outside of being a witness.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Option 1, death.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Ya. When they murder thousands of people but only get a slap on the wrist because they made a billion dollars doing it I guess it makes me reel.

Or when they use Mickey Mouse in their promotional materials without Disney's permission.

no, but perhaps when corporations lie about the contents of bonds to regulators precipitating an economic disaster causing millions to lose their homes and livelihoods. Of course I prefer the common sense approach but that's just me.

[Auristania]

Congratulations, Kefka, you have solved the Rehabilitation paradox.

1) If Rehabilitation ever happened, then it would be a good thing.

2) Liberals are rich, therefore good things happen to them, therefore they believe that good things always happen, therefore they believe that Rehabilitation is inevitable.

3) Liberals release murderers as long as murderers stay away from gated communities.

4) Rehabilitation happens because Magic.